I have not seen The Master or Tree of Life yet, so maybe I wasn't aware there was a novel-like movement sweeping through the film world. But that's exciting.

Come to think of it, most of P.T. Anderson's work I would call "novel-like".

Also, can we quickly think up a different term for "novel-like"? It just doesn't roll off the tongue.

But yes, I am excited for this movie. DiCaprio looks wicked.

I can't think of anything. I'm being lazy.

I don't know if it's exactly a movement. I know that I started writing my screenplays with that structure three years ago in a class and my professor was tossing my pages in the garbage. Which was fine. I knew what he wanted, but I didn't consider what I was doing to be bad work. I'm just happy that respected filmmakers are following through with it. It's not the first time filmmakers have did it. It's more international. I'd argue that a lot of French New Wave movies have followed this structure.

Maybe this question doesn't belong in this thread, but what would you say was the defining characteristic of that approach to crafting a screenplay? Less concern with three-act structure? Less active "plotting"?

It's been a long time since my screenwriting class in college. It was the only form of writing that I took no pleasure in. Maybe I just didn't understand the medium. Or maybe because my natural approach to the task would've been to create something a little less rigidly disciplined than Syd Field would've tolerated, something like you're describing.

To be honest, it was probably out of laziness. To work within a three act structure is tough work. Then again it also came from reading a lot of novels. I started picking up the classics. I started to blend the suspense and intrigue of movie scenes/sequences with the structure of a novel. I made sure whatever I wrote would be entertaining (at least to me) on screen, but it focused more on character and setting than it did on A to B to C plot.

I have a couple ideas for a standard Hollywood script, but for me they're the least interesting. But that's also tough, to make it interesting, yet suitable for a three act structure. Interesting in that the story has something to say, a social or philosophical commentary, and not just a mundane conflict to overcome.

Well said. Yes, three act structure is easier to explain than employ. I would also agree that there's an element of laziness to simply "winging" a screenplay, but half of it (at least) is the thrill of discovery. I simply get bored trying to turn the screws of a plot. Why am I doing this? What does it mean? I start to have existential crises. Then of course I procrastinate because it doesn't feel alive anymore.

The only thing that really compels me to want to write is discovery, and screenwriting does not seem well-suited to the meandering pace at which discovery usually moves. I will spend weeks fine-tuning a 1,000 word short story. On the other hand, I wrote a 120 page screenplay in college in about four days. It was crap of course, but I just didn't know what the hell was going on. We watched Chinatown in class. The instructor was basically telling us, "Write Chinatown." So I studied Chinatown. The more I did, the more inept I felt.

To bring this somewhat back to point, yes, when you're able to combine style with substance-- a thriller with something to say (Blade Runner, maybe?), it's really sublime. QT's movies are usually a thrill, but they don't generally "say" anything. They're bold and referential and alive, but there's not often a message you can take away.

_________________"Writing is easy. All you do is stare at a blank sheet of paper until drops of blood form on your forehead." -- Gene Fowler

Yeah, I'll be seeing this in the next couple days. It's already one of my most enjoyable reading experiences. It's amazing what Tarantino can do with words. He says he hopes to quit filmmaking and attempt a novel some day, and I really hope he does.

Ok so it's not even close to being on the same level as inglorious bastards, but it's still beter than 99% of movies made. Bastards was a masterpiece in my mind. Anyway I disagree with the critics about dicaprio and fox. Di Caprio is enthralling and jamie fox portrays his character well. kinda seems like something was missing...

I liked it. Great performances as usual ( except for the standard horrible tarantino cameo). But I feel if he is gonna spend so much time making the bad guys so horrible, the revenge better be sweet when it happens. Its a little flat.

It was good and entertaining enough, and there were some memorable scenes, but I'd place this behind Inglorious Basterds. Basterd's felt more tight and condensed. Django read better in some scenes than it did watching it on screen, but that's the disadvantages of reading the screenplay first. Tarantino gets too carried away with the violence but that's to be expected from him I guess. A lot of fun though.

Yeah, that was actually my thought while watching the movie......that it would be pretty bad management to take very strong and able bodied men and have them fight to the death if you were in the business of slavery/plantation owning.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum